Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Jackie Broon]

4 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

As has been saud many times. Its widely reported City were looking to get them scrapped completely. I'm not saying that is what's happened, but that was their aim.

 

I haven't seen anything that suggest the case goes further than the current fair market value rules which were brought in late last year, this article it indicates that Man City's case is in part that the PL's rules are more restrictive than UEFA's FMV rules, which implies that they are happy with the UEFA rules.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/08/manchester-city-claim-premier-league-analysis-commercial-income-unfair

[TRon]

This is probably why the story about the £45m the PL have blown on legal costs was leaked this morning.

[Sima]

8 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

If the panel have agreed they are against competition law (which they are), then they have no choice but to scrap them.

 

The whole PSR shitshow is against competition law.

[Guest]

Are we back?

[TRon]

16 minutes ago, gbandit said:

I think we’ll find out in the next few months. There are some things that PIF inevitably need a lot of time on (e.g. the stadium) but increasing sponsor investment from people under their control is something they can do almost immediately

 

It will also encourage them to spend big everywhere else as they know that that they can't be restricted by PSR in future windows.

[Paully]

Article;

 

Scousers will be furious 

 

 

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/premier-league-manchester-city-apt-rules-trial-result-mzc65t0m7

Manchester City appear to have secured a potentially significant victory in their legal battle with the Premier League over the rules designed to limit how much associated parties can pay clubs in sponsorship.

As The Times revealed in June, City launched an unprecedented legal action against the league in a move that has sparked civil war in English football’s top flight.

A two-week private arbitration hearing that started on June 10 was focused on Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, which City argued are unlawful and contrary to the Competition Act 1998.

Introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, the rules were designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. The rules dictate that such transactions have to be independently assessed to be of “fair market value”.

A central pillar of those new rules was a databank to which clubs are required to submit all commercial contracts, which in certain circumstances can be used to validate the value of such deals.

The Times understands the 20 Premier League clubs were due to vote on an amendment to rules specific to the database at the shareholders’ meeting in central London on Thursday. The clubs were to be asked to vote on restricting access to the databank. The vote would have meant regulatory commissions and arbitration panels could not have given access to individual clubs to use the databank to acquire commercial information about rival clubs.

However, the planned vote on the amendment was removed from the agenda late last night, even though more specific details of what the amendment regarded were not included.

According to sources, the “last minute” withdrawal is being interpreted as an indication that a City legal team, led by Lord Pannick KC, have certainly enjoyed some success in convincing an independent panel that the rules on sponsorship deals need to be changed.

Further to that, it may also suggest that it was deemed pointless making one amendment if an issue with the databank actually has wider implications for all the rules regarding APTs.

The development comes with the Premier League’s case against City for 115 alleged breaches of financial rules now in its second week. It remains to be seen how a change to APT rules could impact on the case concerning those alleged breaches, but many of the charges concern City’s sponsorship agreements. That ongoing hearing, which is expected to last ten weeks, could lead to huge fines for the club owners and possibly even relegation for Pep Guardiola’s all-conquering side.

As The Times reported in June, City submitted a 165-page legal document challenging the APT rules. The English champions argue that they are the victims of “discrimination”, describing rules they say have been approved by their rivals to stifle their success on the pitch as a “tyranny of the majority”.

Clubs feared that, should City be successful, it could enable the richest clubs to value their sponsorship deals without independent assessment, vastly boosting the amount of money they can raise and therefore giving them far greater sums to spend on players.

The Premier League have been approached for comment. A spokesperson for City said: “As you know, we are not in a position to comment.”

[Scoot]

3 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I haven't seen anything that suggest the case goes further than the current fair market value rules which were brought in late last year, this article it indicates that Man City's case is in part that the PL's rules are more restrictive than UEFA's FMV rules, which implies that they are happy with the UEFA rules.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/08/manchester-city-claim-premier-league-analysis-commercial-income-unfair

 

Not really sure what you're getting at here. From everything I've read, City want rid of APT rules completely. Getting rid of them means sponsors from related parties won't have to be independently verified ie: won't have to answer to FMV rules.

 

Lets wait and see I suppose as we're not sure of the scale of City's victory yet.

[Bunk Moreland]

[healthyaddiction]

12 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I haven't seen anything that suggest the case goes further than the current fair market value rules which were brought in late last year, this article it indicates that Man City's case is in part that the PL's rules are more restrictive than UEFA's FMV rules, which implies that they are happy with the UEFA rules.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/08/manchester-city-claim-premier-league-analysis-commercial-income-unfair

I'm sure it was reported that part of the case was also how the rules brought in directly after our take over showed we were specifically targetted. Not sure how it benefits Man City that Newcastle were being targetted, but I'm sure that was reported.

[Gaztoon]

Huge if true.. can't wait to see the red cartels reaction 😆

[The College Dropout]

They will try and install a workaround. Maybe they go for anchoring as the lesser evil for example.

[Jackie Broon]

5 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

Not really sure what you're getting at here. From everything I've read, City want rid of APT rules completely. Getting rid of them means sponsors from related parties won't have to be independently verified ie: won't have to answer to FMV rules.

 

Lets wait and see I suppose as we're not sure of the scale of City's victory yet.

 

It's possible that the outcome could be that the concept of APT could be judged to be unlawful, but the case was brought in relation to the changes that were made late last year and UEFA's APT rules would still be in place unless they are also challenged or they decide to take into account the legal precedent set in the UK.

 

Like you say, it depends on the outcome but the APT rules being completely swept aside would be a very significant victory.

[NG32]

7 minutes ago, Gaztoon said:

Huge if true.. can't wait to see the red cartels reaction 😆

The American owners will be in a massive flap!

 

[Scoot]

4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

They will try and install a workaround. Maybe they go for anchoring as the lesser evil for example.

 

Even if they did, we'd be able to spend as much as the top spenders once all our new sponsors were confirmed. 

 

 

[Tonalis Bookie]

They will try something but ultimately it will be appealed again and with the PL persistently going to court and backing down it could make them hesitant. Get everything through now whilst we can. send Longstaff to Jeddah in a 5bn transfer and rename the stadium St Saudia Park for another 5

[Tonalis Bookie]

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

 

Even if they did, we'd be able to spend as much as the top spenders once all our new sponsors were confirmed. 

 

 

 

Exactly, whatever city do, we can match. Then once we are up there, we can be the kitemark

[TRon]

Frankly, it's a disgrace that the PL authorities have put themselves in this position on behalf of the cartel clubs. They have ended up blowing milions upon millions which belonged to all the other clubs in trying to protect the Liverpools and Arsenals when there was no good reason for them to get involved.

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, Tonalis Bookie said:

They will try something but ultimately it will be appealed again and with the PL persistently going to court and backing down it could make them hesitant. Get everything through now whilst we can. send Longstaff to Jeddah in a 5bn transfer and rename the stadium St Saudia Park for another 5

I can't find the Tweet but someone shared a copy of the relevant part of the PL handbook - there isn't really any scope for an appeal, whichever side "wins"

[Fak]

Are we about to take off or not?

[The College Dropout]

The Cartel club rules benefit midtable clubs a lot too. The ones just happy to be on the gravy train.  Like us under Ashley.  Too many ambitious owners make it more difficult and expensive to stay in the within.  

[timeEd32]

Very much one problem at a time and the PL is a much more immediate and stringent problem, but a reminder that even if there's a sweeping victory for City there are still FMV rules in UEFA's handbook.

[jack j]

Remember this fella

 

[Slim]

7 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

Very much one problem at a time and the PL is a much more immediate and stringent problem, but a reminder that even if there's a sweeping victory for City there are still FMV rules in UEFA's handbook.

They just give you a fine.

[Kanj]

Absolute helmet that tarpanja 

[Slim]

1 hour ago, mondonewc said:

Feels like a leap based on the info they're sharing to say this means City definitely won the case, how legit is this guy? Not just another clickbaiting wanker?

 

Sorry no city win

 

https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/1839312079380942887?t=RfZxDRGkh7Do3KV4wArcHw&s=19